B-1667

4-03

I rrigation Water Quality

Standards
and
Salinity Management
Strategies
 I rrigation Water Quality Standards
and Salinity Management
Nearly all waters contain
dissolved salts and trace
elements, many of which
result from the natural
weathering of the earth’s
surface. In addition,
drainage waters from irri-
gated lands and effluent
from city sewage and
industrial waste water can
impact water quality. In
most irrigation situations,
the primary water quality
concern is salinity levels,
since salts can affect both
the soil structure and crop
yield. However, a number of
trace elements are found in
water which can limit its
use for irrigation.
Generally, “salt” is thought
of as ordinary table salt
(sodium chloride). How-
*Associate Professor and Extension
Agricultural Engineer, Department of
Agricultural Engineering, The Texas
A&M University System, College
Station, Texas 77843-2117.
Table 1. Kinds of salts normally found in irrigation waters, with chemical symbols and approxi-
mate proportions of each salt.1 (Longenecker and Lyerly, 1994)
Chemical name
Sodium chloride
Sodium sulfate
Calcium chloride
Calcium sulfate (gypsum)
Magnesium chloride
Magnesium sulfate
Potassium chloride
Potassium sulfate
Sodium bicarbonate
Calcium carbonate
Sodium carbonate
Borates
Nitrates
1
Waters vary greatly in amounts and kinds of dissolved salts. This water typifies many used for irrigation in Texas.
Guy Fipps*
ever, many types of salts Water Analysis:
exist and are commonly
found in Texas waters Units, Terms and
(Table 1). Most salinity
problems in agriculture
Sampling
result directly from the
Numerous parameters are
salts carried in the irriga-
used to define irrigation
tion water. The process at
water quality, to assess
work is illustrated in
salinity hazards, and to
Figure 1, which shows a
determine appropriate man-
beaker of water containing
agement strategies. A com-
a salt concentration of 1
plete water quality analysis
percent. As water evapo-
will include the determina-
rates, the dissolved salts
tion of:
remain, resulting in a solu-
tion with a higher concen- 1) the total concentration of
tration of salt. The same soluble salts,
process occurs in soils. 2) the relative proportion of
Salts as well as other dis- sodium to the other
solved substances begin to cations,
accumulate as water evapo-
3) the bicarbonate concen-
rates from the surface and
tration as related to the
as crops withdraw water.
concentration of calcium
and magnesium, and
4) the concentrations of
specific elements and
compounds.
Chemical symbol Approximate proportion
of total salt content
NaCl Moderate to large
Na2SO4 Moderate to large
CaCl2 Moderate
CaSO4 2H2O Moderate to small
MgCl2 Moderate
MgS04 Moderate to small
KCl Small
K2SO4 Small
NaHCO3 Small
CaCO3 Very Small
Na2CO3 Trace to none
BO-3 Trace to none
-3
NO Small to none
3
Figure 1. Effect of water evaporation on the concentration of salts in solution. A liter is 1.057 quarts. Ten grams is
.035 ounces or about 1 teaspoonful.
The amounts and combina-
tions of these substances
define the suitability of
water for irrigation and the
potential for plant toxicity.
Table 2 defines common
parameters for analyzing
the suitability of water for
irrigation and provides
some useful conversions.
When taking water samples
for laboratory analysis,
keep in mind that water
from the same source can
vary in quality with time.
Therefore, samples should
be tested at intervals
throughout the year, partic-
ularly during the potential
irrigation period. The Soil
and Water Testing Lab at
Texas A&M University can
do a complete salinity
analysis of irrigation water
and soil samples, and will
provide a detailed computer
printout on the interpreta-
tion of the results. Contact
your county Extension
agent for forms and infor-
mation or contact the Lab
at (979) 845-4816.
T wo Types of Salt
Problems
Two types of salt problems
exist which are very differ-
ent: those associated with
the total salinity and those
associated with sodium.
Soils may be affected only
by salinity or by a combi-
nation of both salinity and
sodium.
Salinity Hazard
Water with high salinity is
toxic to plants and poses a
salinity hazard. Soils with
high levels of total salinity
are call saline soils. High
concentrations of salt in
the soil can result in a
“physiological” drought
condition. That is, even
though the field appears to
have plenty of moisture,
Types of Salinity Problems
affects
salinity
hazard
affects
sodium
4
the plants wilt because the
roots are unable to absorb
the water. Water salinity is
usually measured by the
TDS (total dissolved solids)
or the EC (electric conduc-
tivity). TDS is sometimes
referred to as the total
salinity and is measured or
expressed in parts per mil-
lion (ppm) or in the equiva-
lent units of milligrams per
liter (mg/L).
EC is actually a measure-
ment of electric current and
is reported in one of three
possible units as given in
Table 2. Subscripts are used
with the symbol EC to iden-
tify the source of the sam-
ple. ECiw is the electric con-
ductivity of the irrigation
water. ECe is the electric
conductivity of the soil as
measured in a soil sample
(saturated extract) taken
can lead to
plants saline soil
condition
can lead to
soils sodic soil
condition
Table 2. Terms, units, and useful conversions for understanding calculated from the ratio of
water quality analysis reports. sodium to calcium and
magnesium. The latter two
Symbol Meaning Units ions are important since
Total Salinity they tend to counter the
a. EC electric conductivity mmhos/cm effects of sodium. For
µmhos/cm waters containing signifi-
dS/m cant amounts of bicarbon-
b. TDS total dissolved solids mg/L ate, the adjusted sodium
ppm adsorption ratio (SARadj) is
Sodium Hazard sometimes used.
a. SAR sodium adsorption ratio — Continued use of water hav-
b. ESP exchangeable sodium percentage — ing a high SAR leads to a
breakdown in the physical
Determination Symbol Unit of measure Atomic weight structure of the soil.
Constituents Sodium is adsorbed and
(1) cations becomes attached to soil
calcium Ca mol/m3 40.1 particles. The soil then
magnesium Mg mol/m3 24.3 becomes hard and compact
sodium Na mol/m3 23.0 when dry and increasingly
potassium K mol/m3 39.1 impervious to water pene-
(2) anions tration. Fine textured soils,
bicarbonate HCO3 mol/m3 61.0 especially those high in
sulphate SO4 mol/m3 96.1 clay, are most subject to
chloride Cl mol/m3 35.5
carbonate CO3 mol/m3 60.0
this action. Certain amend-
nitrate NO3 mg/L 62.0 ments may be required to
maintain soils under high
Trace Elements
SARs. Calcium and magne-
boron B mg/L 10.8 sium, if present in the soil
Conversions in large enough quantities,
1 dS/m = 1 mmhos/cm = 1000 µmhos/cm will counter the effects of
1 mg/L = 1 ppm the sodium and help main-
TDS (mg/L) ≈ EC (dS/m) x 640 for EC < 5 dS/m tain good soil properties.
TDS (mg/L ≈ EC (dS/m) x 800 for EC > 5 dS/m Soluble sodium per cent
TDS (lbs/ac-ft) ≈ TDS (mg/L) x 2.72 (SSP) is also used to evalu-
ate sodium hazard. SSP is
Concentration (ppm) = Concentration (mol/m3) times the atomic weight
defined as the ration of
Sum of cations/anions sodium in epm (equivalents
(meq/L) ≈ EC (dS/m) x 10 per million) to the total
Key cation epm multiplied by
mg/L = milligrams per liter 100. A water with a SSP
ppm = parts per million greater than 60 per cent
may result in sodium accu-
dS/m = deci Siemens per meter at 25° C
mulations that will cause a
breakdown in the soil’s
physical properties.
from the root zone. ECd is Sodium Hazard
the soil salinity of the satu-
rated extract taken from Irrigation water containing Ions, Trace Elements and
below the root zone. ECd is large amounts of sodium is Other Problems
used to determine the salin- of special concern due to
sodium’s effects on the soil A number of other sub-
ity of the drainage water
and poses a sodium stances may be found in
which leaches below the
hazard. Sodium hazard is irrigation water and can
root zone.
usually expressed in terms cause toxic reactions in
of SAR or the sodium plants (Table 3). After sodi-
adsorption ratio. SAR is um, chloride and boron are

5
Table 3. Recommended limits for constituents in reclaimed water for irrigation. (Adapted from
R owe and Abdel-Magid, 1995)
Constituent Long-term Short-term Remarks
use (mg/L) use (mg/L)
Aluminum (Al) 5.0 20 Can cause nonproductivity in acid soils, but soils at pH 5.5 to 8.0
will precipitate the ion and eliminate toxicity.
Arsenic (As) 0.10 2.0 Toxicity to plants varies widely, ranging from 12 mg/L for Sudan
grass to less than 0.05 mg/L for rice.
Beryllium (Be) 0.10 0.5 Toxicity to plants varies widely, ranging from 5 mg/L for kale to
0.5 mg/L for bush beans.
Boron (B) 0.75 2.0 Essential to plant growth, with optimum yields for many obtained
at a few-tenths mg/L in nutrient solutions. Toxic to many sensitive
plants (e.g., citrus) at 1 mg/L. Most grasses relatively tolerant at
2.0 to 10 mg/L.
Cadmium (Cd) 0.01 0.05 Toxic to beans, beets, and turnips at concentrations as low as 0.1
mg/L in nutrient solution. Conservative limits recommended.
Chromium (Cr) 0.1 1.0 Not generally recognized as essential growth element. Conservative
limits recommended due to lack of knowledge on toxicity to plants.
Cobalt (Co) 0.05 5.0 Toxic to tomato plants at 0.1 mg/L in nutrient solution. Tends to be
inactivated by neutral and alkaline soils.
Copper (Cu) 0.2 5.0 Toxic to a number of plants at 0.1 to 1.0 mg/L in nutrient solution.
Fluoride (F–) 1.0 15.0 Inactivated by neutral and alkaline soils.
Iron (Fe) 5.0 20.0 Not toxic to plants in aerated soils, but can contribute to soil acidifi-
cation and loss of essential phosphorus and molybdenum.
Lead (Pb) 5.0 10.0 Can inhibit plant cell growth at very high concentrations.
Lithium (Li) 2.5 2.5 Tolerated by most crops at up to 5 mg/L; mobile in soil. Toxic to
citrus at low doses recommended limit is 0.075 mg/L.
Manganese (Mg) 0.2 10.0 Toxic to a number of crops at a few-tenths to a few mg/L in acid
soils.
Molybdenum (Mo) 0.01 0.05 Nontoxic to plants at normal concentrations in soil and water. Can
be toxic to livestock if forage is grown in soils with high levels of
available molybdenum.
Nickel (Ni) 0.2 2.0 Toxic to a number of plants at 0.5 to 1.0 mg/L; reduced toxicity at
neutral or alkaline pH.
Selenium (Se) 0.02 0.02 Toxic to plants at low concentrations and to livestock if forage is
grown in soils with low levels of added selenium.
Vanadium (V) 0.1 1.0 Toxic to many plants at relatively low concentrations.
Zinc (Zn) 2.0 10.0 Toxic to many plants at widely varying concentrations; reduced
toxicity at increased pH (6 or above) and in fine-textured or organic
soils.

of most concern. In certain
areas of Texas, boron con-
centrations are excessively
high and render water
unsuitable for irrigations.
Boron can also accumulate
in the soil.
Crops grown on soils hav-
ing an imbalance of calci-
um and magnesium may
also exhibit toxic symp-
toms. Sulfate salts affect
sensitive crops by limiting
the uptake of calcium and
increasing the adsorption
of sodium and potassium,
resulting in a disturbance
in the cationic balance
within the plant. The bicar-
bonate ion in soil solution
harms the mineral nutri-
tion of the plant through
its effects on the uptake
and metabolism of nutri-
ents. High concentrations
of potassium may introduce
a magnesium deficiency
and iron chlorosis. An
imbalance of magnesium
and potassium may be
toxic, but the effects of both
can be reduced by high cal-
cium levels.

6
 Classification of
I rrigation Water
Several different measure-
ments are used to classify
the suitability of water for
irrigation, including ECiw,
the total dissolved solids,
and SAR. Some permissible
limits for classes of irriga-
tion water are given in
Table 4. In Table 5, the sodi-
um hazard of water is
ranked from low to very
high based on SAR values.
Classification of Salt-
Affected Soils
Both ECe and SAR are com-
monly used to classify salt-
affected soils (Table 6).
Saline soils (resulting from
salinity hazard) normally
have a pH value below 8.5,
are relatively low in sodium
and contain principally
sodium, calcium and mag-
nesium chlorides and sul-
Table 4. Permissible limits for classes of irrigation water.
Concentration, total dissolved solids
Classes of water Electrical
conductivity µmhos*
Class 1, Excellent 250
Class 2, Good 250-750
Class 3, Permissible1 750-2,000
Class 4, Doubtful2 2,000-3,000
Class 5, Unsuitable2 3,000
*Micromhos/cm at 25 degrees C.
1
Leaching needed if used
2
Good drainage needed and sensitive plants will have difficulty obtaining
stands
Table 6. Classification of salt-affected soils based on analysis of
saturation extracts. (Adapted from James et al., 1982)
Criteria Normal
ECe (mmhos/cm) <4
SAR <13
fates. These compounds
cause the white crust
which forms on the surface
and the salt streaks along
the furrows. The com-
pounds which cause saline
soils are very soluble in
water; therefore, leaching
is usually quite effective in
reclaiming these soils.
Sodic soils (resulting from
sodium hazard) generally
have a pH value between
8.5 and 10. These soils are
called “black alkali soils”
due to their darkened
appearance and smooth,
slick looking areas caused
by the dispersed condition.
In sodic soils, sodium has
destroyed the permanent
structure which tends to
make the soil impervious to
Gravimetric ppm
175
175-525
525-1,400
1,400-2,100
2,100
Saline Sodic Saline-Sodic
>4 <4 >4
<13 >13 >13
water. Thus, leaching
alone will not be effective
unless the high salt dilu-
tion method or amend-
ments are used.
Water Quality
Effects on Plants
and Crop Yield
Table 7 gives the expected
yield reduction of some
crops for various levels of
soil salinity as measured
by EC under normal grow-
ing conditions, and Table 8
gives potential yield reduc-
tion due to water salinity
levels. Generally forage
crops are the most resistant
to salinity, followed by field
crops, vegetable crops, and
fruit crops which are gen-
erally the most sensitive.
Table 9 lists the chloride
tolerance of a number of
agricultural crops. Boron
is a major concern in some
areas. While a necessary
nutrient, high boron levels
cause plant toxicity, and
concentrations should not
exceed those given in Table
10. Some information is
available on the susceptibil-
ity of crops to foliar injury
from spray irrigation with
water containing sodium

Table 5. The sodium hazard of water based on SAR Values.

SAR values Sodium hazard of water Comments
1-10 Low Use on sodium sensitive crops such as avocados
must be cautioned.
10 - 18 Medium Amendments (such as Gypsum) and leaching needed.
18 - 26 High Generally unsuitable for continuous use.
> 26 Very High Generally unsuitable for use.

7
Table 7. Soil salinity tolerance levels1 for different crops. and chloride (Table 11). The
( Adapted from Ayers and Westcot, 1976) tolerance of crops to sodi-
um as measured by the
Yield potential, ECe exchangeable sodium per-
Crop 100% 90% 75% 50% Maximum ECe centage (ESP) is given in
Field crops Table 12.
Barleya 8.0 10.0 13.0 18.0 28
Bean (field) 1.0 1.5 2.3 3.6 7
Salinity and Growth Stage
Broad bean 1.6 2.6 4.2 6.8 12 Many crops have little toler-
Corn 1.7 2.5 3.8 5.9 10 ance for salinity during
Cotton 7.7 9.6 13.0 17.0 27 seed germination, but sig-
Cowpea 1.3 2.0 3.1 4.9 9 nificant tolerance during
Flax 1.7 2.5 3.8 5.9 10 later growth stages. Some
Groundnut 3.2 3.5 4.1 4.9 7
crops such as barley, wheat
and corn are known to be
Rice (paddy) 3.0 3.8 5.1 7.2 12
more sensitive to salinity
Safflower 5.3 6.2 7.6 9.9 15 during the early growth
Sesbania 2.3 3.7 5.9 9.4 17 period than during germi-
Sorghum 4.0 5.1 7.2 11.0 18 nation and later growth
Soybean 5.0 5.5 6.2 7.5 10 periods. Sugar beet and saf-
Sugar beet 7.0 8.7 11.0 15.0 24 flower are relatively more
Wheata 6.0 7.4 9.5 13.0 20 sensitive during germina-
Vegetable crops tion, while the tolerance of
Bean 1.0 1.5 2.3 3.6 7 soybeans may increase or
Beetb 4.0 5.1 6.8 9.6 15 decrease during different
Broccoli 2.8 3.9 5.5 8.2 14 growth periods depending
Cabbage 1.8 2.8 4.4 7.0 12
on the variety.
Cantaloupe 2.2 3.6 5.7 9.1 16
Carrot 1.0 1.7 2.8 4.6 8
Leaching for Salinity
Cucumber 2.5 3.3 4.4 6.3 10 Management
Lettuce 1.3 2.1 3.2 5.2 9
Onion 1.2 1.8 2.8 4.3 8 Soluble salts that accumu-
Pepper 1.5 2.2 3.3 5.1 9 late in soils must be leached
Potato 1.7 2.5 3.8 5.9 10 below the crop root zone to
Radish 1.2 2.0 3.1 5.0 9
maintain productivity.
Leaching is the basic man-
Spinach 2.0 3.3 5.3 8.6 15
agement tool for control-
Sweet corn 1.7 2.5 3.8 5.9 10 ling salinity. Water is
Sweet potato 1.5 2.4 3.8 6.0 11 applied in excess of the
Tomato 2.5 3.5 5.0 7.6 13 total amount used by the
Forage crops crop and lost to evapora-
Alfalfa 2.0 3.4 5.4 8.8 16 tion. The strategy is to keep
Barley haya 6.0 7.4 9.5 13.0 20 the salts in solution and
Bermudagrass 6.9 8.5 10.8 14.7 23 flush them below the root
Clover, Berseem 1.5 3.2 5.9 10.3 19 zone. The amount of water
Corn (forage) 1.8 3.2 5.2 8.6 16 needed is referred to as the
Harding grass 4.6 5.9 7.9 11.1 18 leaching requirement or the
Orchard grass 1.5 3.1 5.5 9.6 18
leaching fraction.
Perennial rye 5.6 6.9 8.9 12.2 19 Excess water may be
Sudan grass 2.8 5.1 8.6 14.4 26 applied with every irriga-
Tall fescue 3.9 5.8 8.61 3.3 23 tion to provide the water
Tall wheat grass 7.5 9.9 13.3 19.4 32
needed for leaching. How-
ever, the time interval
Trefoil, big 2.3 2.8 3.6 4.9 8
between leachings does not
Trefoil, small 5.0 6.0 7.5 10.0 15 appear to be critical provid-
Wheat grass 7.5 9.0 11.0 15.0 22 ed that crop tolerances are
8
Table 7. Soil salinity tolerance levels1 for different crops. not exceeded. Hence, leach-
(continued) ing can be accomplished
with each irrigation, every
Yield potential, ECe few irrigations, once yearly,
Crop 100% 90% 75% 50% Maximum ECe or even longer depending
Fruit crops on the severity of the salini-
Almond 1.5 2.0 2.8 4.1 7 ty problem and salt toler-
Apple, Pear 1.7 2.3 3.3 4.8 8
ance of the crop. An occa-
sional or annual leaching
Apricot 1.6 2.0 2.6 3.7 6
event where water is ponded
Avocado 1.3 1.8 2.5 3.7 6 on the surface is an easy
Date palm 4.0 6.8 10.9 17.9 32 and effective method for
Fig, Olive, controlling soil salinity. In
Pomegranate 2.7 3.8 5.5 8.4 14 some areas, normal rainfall
Grape 1.5 2.5 4.1 6.7 12 provides adequate leaching.
Grapefruit 1.8 2.4 3.4 4.9 8
Lemon 1.7 2.3 3.3 4.8 8 Determining Required
Orange 1.7 2.3 3.2 4.8 8 Leaching Fraction
Peach 1.7 2.2 2.9 4.1 7
Plum 1.5 2.1 2.9 4.3 7 The leaching fraction is
Strawberry 1.0 1.3 1.8 2.5 4 commonly calculated using
the following relationship:
Walnut 1.7 2.3 3.3 4.8 8
1
Based on the electrical conductivity of the saturated extract taken from a ECiw
root zone soil sample (ECe) measured in mmhos/cm. LF = (1)
a ECe
During germination and seedling stage ECe should not exceed 4 to 5
mmhos/cm except for certain semi-dwarf varieties. where
b
During germination ECe should not exceed 3 mmhos/cm. LF = leaching fraction
- the fraction of
applied irrigation
Table 8. Irrigation water salinity tolerances1 for different crops. water that must
( Adapted from Ayers and Westcot, 1976) be leached
Yield potential, ECi w through the root
zone
Crop 100% 90% 75% 50%
ECiw = electric conductiv-
Field crops
ity of the irriga-
Barley 5.0 6.7 8.7 12.0 tion water
Bean (field) 0.7 1.0 1.5 2.4
Broad bean 1.1 1.8 2.0 4.5
ECe = the electric con-
ductivity of the
Corn 1.1 1.7 2.5 3.9
soil in the root
Cotton 5.1 6.4 8.4 12.0 zone
Cowpea 0.9 1.3 2.1 3.2
Flax 1.1 1.7 2.5 3.9
Equation (1) can be used to
determine the leaching frac-
Groundnut 2.1 2.4 2.7 3.3
tion necessary to maintain
Rice (paddy) 2.0 2.6 3.4 4.8 the root zone at a targeted
Safflower 3.5 4.1 5.0 6.6 salinity level. If the amount
Sesbania 1.5 2.5 3.9 6.3 of water available for leach-
Sorghum 2.7 3.4 4.8 7.2 ing is fixed, then the equa-
Soybean 3.3 3.7 4.2 5.0 tion can be used to calculate
Sugar beet 4.7 5.8 7.5 10.0 the salinity level that will be
Wheat 4.0 4.9 6.4 8.7 maintained in the root zone
Vegetable crops with that amount of leach-
Bean 0.7 1.0 1.5 2.4 ing. Please note that equa-
Beet 2.7 3.4 4.5 6.4 tion (1) simplifies a compli-
Broccoli 1.9 2.6 3.7 5.5
cated soil water process. ECe
should be checked periodi-

9
 cally and the amount of
Table 8. Irrigation water salinity tolerances1 for different crops.
leaching adjusted accord-
(continued)
ingly.
Yield potential, ECi w
Based on this equation,
Crop 100% 90% 75% 50% Table 13 lists the amount of
Cabbage 1.2 1.9 2.9 4.6 leaching needed for differ-
Cantaloupe 1.5 2.4 3.8 6.1 ent classes of irrigation
Carrot 0.7 1.1 1.9 3.1 waters to maintain the soil
Cucumber 1.7 2.2 2.9 4.2 salinity in the root zone at
Lettuce 0.9 1.4 2.1 3.4 a desired level. However,
additional water must be
Onion 0.8 1.2 1.8 2.9
supplied because of the
Pepper 1.0 1.5 2.2 3.4
inefficiencies of irrigation
Potato 1.1 1.7 2.5 3.9 systems (Table 14), as well
Radish 0.8 1.3 2.1 3.4 as to remove the existing
Spinach 1.3 2.2 3.5 5.7 salts in the soil.
Sweet corn 1.1 1.7 2.5 3.9
Sweet potato 1.0 1.6 2.5 4.0 Subsur face Drainage
Tomato 1.7 2.3 3.4 5.0
Forage crops Very saline, shallow water
Alfalfa 1.3 2.2 3.6 5.9 tables occur in many areas
Barley hay 4.0 4.9 6.3 8.7 of Texas. Shallow water
Bermudagrass 4.6 5.7 7.2 9.8 tables complicate salinity
Clover, Berseem 1.0 2.1 3.9 6.8 management since water
may actually move upward
Corn (forage) 1.2 2.1 3.5 5.7
into the root zone, carrying
Harding grass 3.1 3.9 5.3 7.4
with it dissolved salts.
Orchard grass 1.0 2.1 3.7 6.4 Water is then extracted by
Perennial rye 3.7 4.6 5.9 8.1 crops and evaporation,
Sudan grass 1.9 3.4 5.7 9.6 leaving behind the salts.
Tall fescue 2.6 3.9 5.7 8.9
Shallow water tables also
Tall wheat grass 5.0 6.6 9.0 13.0 contribute to the salinity
Trefoil, big 1.5 1.9 2.4 3.3 problem by restricting the
Trefoil, small 3.3 4.0 5.0 6.7 downward leaching of salts
Wheat grass 5.0 6.0 7.4 9.8 through the soil profile.
Fruit crops Installation of a subsurface
Almond 1.0 1.4 1.9 2.7 drainage system is about
Apple, Pear 1.0 1.6 2.2 3.2 the only solution available
Apricot 1.1 1.3 1.8 2.5 for this situation. The
Avocado 0.9 1.2 1.7 2.4 original clay tiles have been
Date palm 2.7 4.5 7.3 12.0 replaced by plastic tubing.
Modern drainage tubes are
Fig, Olive,
Pomegranate 1.8 2.6 3.7 5.6 covered by a “sock” made of
fabric to prevent clogging
Grape 1.0 1.7 2.7 4.5
of the small openings in
Grapefruit 1.2 1.6 2.2 3.3
the plastic tubing.
Lemon 1.1 1.6 2.2 3.2
Orange 1.1 1.6 2.2 3.2 A schematic of a subsurface
drainage system is shown
Peach 1.1 1.4 1.9 2.7
in Figure 2. The design
Plum 1.0 1.4 1.9 2.8
parameters are the distance
Strawberry 0.7 0.9 1.2 1.7 between drains (L) and the
Walnut 1.1 1.6 2.2 3.2 elevation of the drains (d)
1
Based on the electrical conductivity of the irrigation water (ECiw) measured above the underlying
in mmhos/cm. impervious or restricting
layer. Proper spacing and

10
depth maintain the water
level at an optimum level,
shown here as the distance
m above the drain tubes.
The USDA Natural
Resources Conservation
Service (NRCS) has devel-
oped drainage design
guidelines that are used
throughout the United
States. A drainage comput-
er model developed by
Wayne Skaggs at North
Carolina State University,
DRAINMOD, is also widely
used throughout the world
for subsurface drainage
design.
Seed Placement
Obtaining a satisfactory
stand is often a problem
when furrow irrigating
with saline water. Growers
sometimes compensate for
poor germination by planti-
ng two or three times as
much seed as normally
would be required.
However, planting proce-
dures can be adjusted to
Figure 2. A subsurface drainage system. Plastic draintubes are located a distance (L) apart.
lower the salinity in the soil
around the germinating
seeds. Good salinity control
is often achieved with a
combination of suitable
practices, bed shapes and
irrigation water manage-
ment.
In furrow-irrigated soils,
planting seeds in the center
of a single-row, raised bed
places the seeds exactly
where salts are expected to
concentrate (Figure 3). This
situation can be avoided
using “salt ridges.” With a
double-row raised planting
bed, the seeds are placed
near the shoulders and
away from the area of
greatest salt accumulation.
Alternate-furrow irrigation
may help in some cases. If
alternate furrows are irri-
gated, salts often can be
moved beyond the single
seed row to the non-irrigat-
ed side of the planting bed.
Salts will still accumulate,
but accumulation at the
center of the bed will be
reduced.
11
With either single- or dou-
ble-row plantings, increas-
ing the depth of the water
in the furrow can improve
germination in saline soils.
Another practice is to use
sloping beds, with the seeds
planted on the sloping side
just above the water line
(Fig. 3b). Seed and plant
placement is also important
with the use of drip irriga-
tion. Typical wetting pat-
terns of drip emitters and
micro-sprinklers are shown
in Figure 4. Salts tend to
move out and upward, and
will accumulate in the areas
shown.
Other Salinity
Management
Techniques
Techniques for controlling
salinity that require rela-
tively minor changes are
more frequent irrigations,
selection of more salt-toler-
ant crops, additional leach-
Figure 3a. Single-row versus double-row beds showing areas of salt accumulation following a heav y irrigation with
salty water. Best planting position is on the shoulders of the double-row bed.

Figure 3b. Pattern of salt build-up as a function of seed placement, bed shape and irrigation water quality.

12
 ing, preplant irrigation, bed
Table 9. Chloride tolerance of agricultural crops. Listed in order
forming and seed place-
of tolerancea . (Adapted from Tanji. 1990)
- b ment. Alternatives that
Maximum Cl concentration require significant changes
without loss in yield in management are chang-
3
Crop mol/m ppm ing the irrigation method,
Strawberry 10 350 altering the water supply,
Bean 10 350 land-leveling, modifying the
soil profile, and installing
Onion 10 350
subsurface drainage.
Carrot 10 350
Radish 10 350 Residue Management
Lettuce 10 350
The common saying “salt
Turnip 10 350 loves bare soils” refers to
c
Rice, paddy 30d 1,050 the fact that exposed soils
Pepper 15 525 have higher evaporation
Clover, strawberry 15 525 rates than those covered by
Clover, red 15 525 residues. Residues left on
the soil surface reduce evap-
Clover, alsike 15 525
oration. Thus, less salts will
Clover, ladino 15 525 accumulate and rainfall will
Corn 15 525 be more effective in provid-
Flax 15 525 ing for leaching.
Potato 15 525
Sweet potato 15 525
More Frequent Irrigations
Broad bean 15 525 Salt concentrations increase
Cabbage 15 525 in the soil as water is
Foxtail, meadow 15 525
extracted by the crop.
Typically, salt concentra-
Celery 15 525 tions are lowest following
Clover, Berseem 15 525 an irrigation and higher
Orchardgrass 15 525 just before the next irriga-
Sugarcane 15 525 tion. Increasing irrigation
Trefoil, big 20 700 frequency maintains a more
Lovegras 20 700
constant moisture content
in the soil. Thus, more of
Spinach 20 700 the salts are then kept in
Alfalfa 20 700 solution which aids the
c
Sesbania 20 700 leaching process. Surge
Cucumber 25 875 flow irrigation is often effec-
Tomato 25 875 tive at reducing the mini-
Broccoli 25 875
mum depth of irrigation
that can be applied with fur-
Squash, scallop 30 1,050 row irrigation systems.
Vetch, common 30 1,050 Thus, a larger number of
Wild rye, beardless 30 1,050 irrigations are possible
Sudan grass 30 1,050 using the same amount of
Wheat grass, standard crested 35 1,225 water.
c With proper placement, drip
Beet, red 40 1,400
Fescue, tall 40 1,400 irrigation is very effective at
Squash, zucchini 45 1,575
flushing salts, and water
can be applied almost con-
Harding grass 45 1,575 tinuously. Center pivots
Cowpea 50 1,750 equipped with LEPA water
Trefoil, narrow-leaf bird’s foot 50 1,750 applicators offer similar effi-
ciencies and control as drip

13
Table 9. Chloride tolerance of agricultural crops. Listed in order
of tolerancea . (continued)
- b
Maximum Cl concentration
without loss in yield
3 Amendments are composed
Crop mol/m ppm
Ryegrass, perennial 55 1,925
Wheat, Durum 55 1,925
c gypsum. Gypsum also con-
Barley (forage) 60 2,100
c tains calcium which is an
Wheat 60 2,100
Sorghum 70 2,450
Bermudagrass 70 2,450
c render the natural calcium
Sugar beet 70 2,450
Wheat grass, fairway crested 75 2,625
Cotton 75 1,625
Wheat grass, tall 75 2,625
c
Barley 80 2,800
a
These data serve only as a guideline to relative tolerances among crops.
Absolute tolerances vary, depending upon climate, soil conditions and
cultural practices.
b –
Cl concentrations in saturated-soil extracts sampled in the rootzone.
c
Less tolerant during emergence and seedling stage.
d –
Values for paddy rice refer to the Cl concentration in the soil water during
the flooded growing conditions.
irrigation at less than half irrigation or depth of water
the cost. Both sprinkler and applied per irrigation. For
drip provide more control example, with furrow irri-
and flexibility in scheduling gation it may not be possi-
irrigation than furrow sys- ble to reduce the depth of
tems. water applied below 3-4
inches. As a result, irrigat-
Preplant Irrigation ing more frequently might
improve water availability
Salts often accumulate near
to the crop but might also
the soil surface during fal-
waste water. Converting to
low periods, particularly
surge flow irrigation may
when water tables are high
be the solution for many
or when off-season rainfall
furrow systems. Otherwise
is below normal. Under
a sprinkler or drip irriga-
these conditions, seed ger-
tion system may be
mination and seedling
required.
growth can be seriously
reduced unless the soil is
leached before planting.
Chemical Amendments
In sodic soils (or sodium
Changing Surface affected soils), sodium ions
Irrigation Method have become attached to
and adsorbed onto the soil
Surface irrigation methods, particles. This causes a
such as flood, basin, furrow breakdown in soil structure
and border are usually not and results in soil sealing
sufficiently flexible to per- or “cementing,” making it
mit changes in frequency of difficult for water to infil-
14
trate. Chemical amend-
ments are used in order to
help facilitate the displace-
ment of these sodium ions.
of sulphur in its elemental
form or related compounds
such as sulfuric acid and
important element in cor-
recting these conditions.
Some chemical amendments
in the soil more soluble. As
a result, calcium replaces
the adsorbed sodium which
helps restore the infiltra-
tion capacity of the soil.
Polymers are also begin-
ning to be used for treating
sodic soils.
It is important to note that
use of amendments does
not eliminate the need for
leaching. Excess water
must still be applied to
leach out the displaced
sodium. Chemical amend-
ments are only effective on
sodium-affected soils.
Amend-ments are ineffec-
tive for saline soil condi-
tions and often will
increase the existing salini-
ty problem. Table 15 lists
the most common amend-
ments. The irrigation books
listed under the References
section present equations
that are used to determine
the amount of amendments
needed based on soil analy-
sis results.
Pipe Water Delivery
Systems Stabilize Salinity
As illustrated in Fig. 1, any
open water is subject to
evaporation which leads to
higher salt concentrations
in the water. Evaporation
rates from water surfaces
often exceed 0.25 inch a
day during summer in
Texas. Thus, the salinity
content of irrigation water
will increase during the
entire time water is trans-
ported through irrigation
canals or stored in reser-
voirs. Replacing irrigation
ditches with pipe systems
will help stabilize salinity
levels. In addition, pipe sys-
tems, including gated pipe
and lay-flat tubing, reduce
water lost to canal seepage
and increase the amount of
water available for leaching.

Figure 4. Typical wetting patterns and areas of salt accumulation with drip emitters and micro-sprinklers sprayers.

15
Table 10. Limits of boron in irrigation water. (Adapted from Rowe and Abdel-Magid, 1995)
A. Permissible Limits (Boron in parts per million)
Class of water Crop group
Sensitive Semitolerant Tolerant
Excellent <0.33 <0.67 <1.00
Good 0.33 to 0.67 0.67 to 1.33 1.00 to 2.00
Permissible 0.67 to 1.00 1.33 to 2.00 2.00 to 3.00
Doubtful 1.00 to 1.25 2.00 to 2.50 3.00 to 3.75
Unsuitable >1.25 >2.5 >3.75
B. Crop groups of boron tolerance (in each plant group, the first names are considered as being more
tolerant; the last names, more sensitive).
Sensitive Semitolerant Tolerant
(1.0 mg/L of Boron) (2.0 mg/L of Boron) (4.0 mg/L of Boron)
Pecan Sunflower (native) Athel (Tamarix aphylla)
Walnut (Black, Persian, or English) Potato Asparagus
Jerusalem artichoke Cotton (Acala and Pima) Palm (Phoenix canariensis)
Navy bean Tomato Date palm (P. dactylifera)
American elm Sweetpea Sugar beet
Plum Radish Mangel
Pear Field pea Garden beet
Apple Ragged Robin rose Alfalfa
Grape (Sultania and Malaga) Olive Gladiolus
Kadota fig Barley Broad bean
Persimmon Wheat Onion
Cherry Corn Turnip
Peach Milo Cabbage
Apricot Oat Lettuce
Thornless blackberry Zinnia Carrot
Orange Pumpkin
Avocado Bell pepper
Grapefruit Sweet potato
Lemon Lima bean
(0.3 mg/L of Boron) (1.0 mg/L of Boron) (2.0 mg/L of Boron)

Table 11. Relative susceptibility of crops to foliar injury from

saline sprinkling waters. (Tanji, 1990)
Na or Cl concentration (mol/m3) causing foliar injury a
<5 5-10 10-20 >20
Almond Grape Alfalfa Cauliflower
Apricot Pepper Barley Cotton
Citrus Potato Corn Sugar beet
Plum Tomato Cucumber Sunflower
Safflower
Sesame
Sorghum
a
Foliar injury is influenced by cultural and environmental conditions. These
data are presented only as general guidelines for daytime sprinkling.

16
Table 12. Tolerance of Various Crops to Exchangeable-Sodium Percentage. (James et al., 1982)
Tolerance to ESP Growth Responsible
(range at which affected) Crop Under Field Conditons
Extremely sensitive Deciduous fruits Sodium toxicity symptoms even at
(ESP = 2-10) Nuts low ESP values
Citrus
Avocado
Sensitive Beans Stunted growth at low ESP values
(ESP = 10-20) even though the physical condition
of the soil may be good
Moderately tolerant Clover Stunted growth due to both
(ESP = 20-40) Oats nutritional factors and adverse soil
Tall fescue conditions
Rice
Dallisgrass
Tolerant Wheat Stunted growth usually due to
(ESP = 40-60) Cotton adverse physical conditions of soil
Alfalfa
Barley
Tomatoes
Beets
Most tolerant Crested and Fairway wheatgrass Stunted growth usually due to
(ESP > 60) Tall wheatgrass adverse physical conditions of soil
Rhodes grass

Table 13. Leaching requirement* as related to the electrical conductivities of the irrigation and
drainage water.
Electrical conductivity of Leaching requirement based on the indicated maximum values for the
irrigation water (mmhos/cm) conductivity of the drainage water at the bottom of the root zone
4 mmhos/cm 8 mmhos/cm 12 mmhos/cm 16 mmhos/cm
Percent Percent Percent Percent
0.75 13.3 9.4 6.3 4.7
1.00 25.0 12.5 8.3 6.3
1.25 31.3 15.6 10.4 7.8
1.50 37.5 18.7 12.5 9.4
2.00 50.0 25.0 16.7 12.5
2.50 62.5 31.3 20.8 15.6
3.00 75.0 37.5 25.0 18.7
5.00 — 62.5 41.7 31.2
*Fraction of the applied irrigation water that must be leached through the root zone expressed as percent.

17
Table 14. Typical overall on-farm efficiencies for various types of irrigation systems.
S ystem O verall efficiency (%)
Surface 50-80
a. average 50
b. land leveling and delivery pipeline meeting design standards 70
c. tailwater recovery with (b) 80
d. surge 60-90*
Sprinkler (moving and fixed systems) 55-85
LEPA (low pressure precision application) 95-98
Drip 80-90**
*Surge has been found to increase efficiencies 8 to 28% over non-surge furrow systems.
**Drip systems are typically designed at 90% efficiency, short laterals (100 feet) or systems with pressure compen-
sating emitters may have higher efficiencies.

Table 15. Various amendments for reclaiming sodic soil and amount
equivalent to gypsum.
Amendment P h ysical description Amount equivalent
100% gypsum
Gypsum* White mineral 1.0
Sulfur† Yellow element 0.2
Sulfuric acid* Corrosive liquid 0.6
Lime sulfur* Yellow-brown solution 0.8
Calcium carbonate† White mineral 0.6
Calcium chloride* White salt 0.9
Ferrous sulfate* Blue-green salt 1.6
Pyrite† Yellow-black mineral 0.5
Ferric sulfate* Yellow-brown salt 0.6
Aluminum sulfate* Corrosive granules 1.3
*Suitable for use as a water or soil amendment.
†
Suitable only for soil application.

18
 References James, D.W., R.J. Hanks
and J.H. Jurinak. 1982.
Ayres, R.S. and D.W. Modern Irrigated Soils.
Westcot. 1976. Water John Wiley and Sons,
Quality for Agriculture. NY.
Irrigation and Drainage Jensen, M.E. (Editor). 1980.
Paper No. 29. Food and Design and Operation of
Agriculture Farm Irrigation
Organization of the Systems. American
United Nations. Rome. Society of Agricultural
Cuena, R.H. 1989. Engineers, St. Joseph
Irrigation System MI. 829pp.
Design. Prentice Hall, Longenecker, D.E. and P.J.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Lyerly. 1974. B-876
552pp. Control of Soluble Salts
Hoffman, G.S., R.S. Ayers, in Farming and
E.J. Doering and B.L. Gardening. Texas
McNeal. 1980. Salinity Agricultural Experiment
in Irrigated Agriculture. Station, Texas A&M
In: Design and University System,
Operation of Farm College Station. June.
Irrigation Systems. 36pp.
M.E. Jensen, Editor. Pair, C.H. (editor). 1983.
ASAE Monograph No. 3. Irrigation. The
St. Joseph, MI. 829pp. Irrigation Assoc.,
Arlington, VA. 680pp.
Rowe, D.R. and I.M. Abdel-
Magid. 1995. Handbook
of Wastewater
Reclamation and Reuse.
CRC Press, Inc. 550pp.
Stewart, B.A. and D.R.
Nielsen. 1990. Irrigation
of Agricultural Crops.
American Society of
Agronomy. 1,218pp.
Tanji, K.K. 1990.
Agricultural Salinity
Assessment and
Management. American
Society of Civil
Engineers. Manuals and
Reports on Engineering
Practice Number 71.
619pp.
van der Leeden, F., F.L.
Troise and D.K. Todd.
1990. The Water
Encyclopedia. Lewis
Publishers. 808pp.
 Produced by Agricultural Communications, The Texas A&M University System
Extension publications can be found on the Web at: http://tcebookstore.org

Educational programs of Texas Cooperative Extension are open to all people without regard to race, color, sex, disability, religion, age or
national origin.
Issued in furtherance of Cooperative Extension Work in Agriculture and Home Economics, Acts of Congress of May 8, 1914, as amended,
and June 30, 1914, in cooperation with the United States Department of Agriculture. Chester P. Fehlis, Director, Texas Cooperative
Extension, The Texas A&M University System.
10M, Reprint